johnny g Posted June 9, 2008 Share Posted June 9, 2008 Although there was no excuse for what LH did, it once again shows how biased F1 is towards Ferrari. Kimi got sod all of a Penalty for his Monaco feck up. Look at it this way, If the stewards had done their job correctly and gave Kimi a penalty then he would not have been at the end of the pit lane meaning LH would not have caused the incident. Kimi lost control of his car in racing conditions, out on the track - Quimilton hit him in the pits under controlled conditions, i.e. freshly opened pitlane, safety car conditions and a red light. The two are not really comparable IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grahamc Posted June 9, 2008 Share Posted June 9, 2008 Formula 1 cars need temperature to work properly he had just done a pit stop and his brakes and tyres wouldn't of been at their best so stopping quickly isn't going to happen, which is why the accident looked so daft. As for aiming at Kimi, the pit lane had space on the left which is what he tried to swerve towards if you look. He cocked up and has lost out so why does he need punishing, he was in the lead of the GP with ease and know he has no points. Kimi did something similar a couple of weeks back and wasn't punished although he does drive a ferrari. I agree that he was trying to avoid them both, kimi was parked slightly further ahead than kubica and there was a gap. Kimi lost control of his car in racing conditions, out on the track - Quimilton hit him in the pits under controlled conditions, i.e. freshly opened pitlane, safety car conditions and a red light. The two are not really comparable IMO. Agree completely.... penalty well deserved!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jamesmark Posted June 9, 2008 Share Posted June 9, 2008 Kimi lost control of his car in racing conditions, out on the track - Quimilton hit him in the pits under controlled conditions, i.e. freshly opened pitlane, safety car conditions and a red light. The two are not really comparable IMO. Both were racing incidents controlled or not. I agree that LH was 100% at fault and deserved the punishment. However the crash at Monaco shoudl have carried a punishment for Kimi imo. He came in too hot and that kind of driving was not needed especially when the end result was he could not control his car. I am not a fan of Ferrari but I am a fan of Kimi, imo he should have got a penelty at Monaco. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlexM Posted June 9, 2008 Share Posted June 9, 2008 The fact that drivers have missed those lights in the past surely says something? Just how hard is it to see them when you're halfway back up the pit lane? They should be bigger and easier to view, Hamilton said he saw them but too late - I'm really not surprised. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnny g Posted June 9, 2008 Share Posted June 9, 2008 Both were racing incidents controlled or not. I have to disagree there matey. In Monaco, Kimi was out, fighting for position. He was racing Sutil and Sutil was racing him. In Montreal, Hamilton was just stupid. How can you not see two cars parked up in front of you? I agree that LH was 100% at fault and deserved the punishment. However the crash at Monaco shoudl have carried a punishment for Kimi imo. He came in too hot and that kind of driving was not needed especially when the end result was he could not control his car. I agree he came in to hot - but he had to drive to get the points - that was a pure racing incident. Lewis' argument of "it's just one of those things" can be used there. The track was changeable that day in Monaco. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jamesmark Posted June 9, 2008 Share Posted June 9, 2008 I agree he came in to hot - but he had to drive to get the points - that was a pure racing incident. Lewis' argument of "it's just one of those things" can be used there. The track was changeable that day in Monaco. In a way I agree with you, the angle that I was coming from is if the roles were reversed and this is what was in the paddock too that if Sutil came in too hot and took the world champ out the repecustions (sp) woudl have been totally different (past times have always confirmed this) That is all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnny g Posted June 9, 2008 Share Posted June 9, 2008 In a way I agree with you, the angle that I was coming from is if the roles were reversed and this is what was in the paddock too that if Sutil came in too hot and took the world champ out the repecustions (sp) woudl have been totally different (past times have always confirmed this) That is all. Oh without a doubt, 100% agree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
merckx Posted June 9, 2008 Share Posted June 9, 2008 ITV cut the press conference...I wanted to hear what coulthard had to say! http://www.formula1.com/news/headlines/2008/6/7904.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now